ABSTRACT
For the purposes of this paper, the field of linguistics may be conveniently sub-classified in terms of the following four distinctions: theoretical versus applied, general versus descriptive, synchronic versus diachronic, microlinguistics versus macrolinguistics.
By theoretical linguistics is meant the scientific study of language for its own sake; by applied linguistics, the application of the concepts, techniques, and results of either theoretical or descriptive linguistics to such practical tasks as language-teaching, speech-therapy, the design of literacy programmes, the standardisation of national languages for emergent states, and so on. We shall not be concerned with applied linguistics at all in what follows.
‘General linguistics is not normally distinguished from theoretical linguistics; and we will not insist upon the difference here. It will be convenient, however, to reserve the term ‘general’ as the complement of ‘descriptive’. General linguistics, then, sets itself the goal of establishing a theory of the structure of language (i.e., of language in general), whereas descriptive linguistics deals with the analysis of particular languages (English, Amharic, Navaho, etc.). In both cases, it should be noted we can talk appropriately in terms of model-construction: the general linguist sets out to construct a model of language, and the descriptive linguist to construct a model of some particular language. How the general model is related to particular descriptive models is an important question, which we will take up briefly at the end of this paper.
Synchronic linguistics deals with languages considered as static systems, without reference to their previous or subsequent historical development and without reference to their so-called genetic relationships; diachronic (or historical) linguistics is concerned with the changes that take place, or have taken place, in languages between successive points in time. The distinction between general and descriptive linguistics, it should be observed, is independent of the distinction between synchronic and diachronic linguistics. If our aim is to construct a theory, or model, of language change, then we are engaged in general diachronic linguistics. If we are dealing with the historical development of some particular language, we are doing descriptive diachronic linguistics. Just as synchronic models may be either general or descriptive, so also may diachronic models. 4 The terms ‘microlinguistics’ and ‘macrolinguistics’ are here being used to refer to a relatively narrow or relatively broad conception of the scope of linguistics. The microlinguistic view of languages deliberately abstracts from their social context and social function, from the manner in which they are acquired in infancy, from the psychological mechanisms which underly the production and reception of speech, from the aesthetic and literary function of language, and so on. These, and other aspects, of language are dealt with in such branches of macrolinguistics as sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics and stylistics. A particular instance of the distinction between the subject matter of microlinguistics and of macrolinguistics – and one of central concern to us in the present connection, as we shall see – is the distinction between competence and performance. Microlinguistics is commonly referred to as structural linguistics (cf. Lyons 1970:8).
